Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Board Spurns Democratic Elections
Pelerin writes "At its meeting in Ghana, ICANN has
voted against the proposals made
in the Final Report on ICANN At-Large Membership, which among other things proposed
an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO), which
would hold elections for At-Large seats on the
ICANN board. Membership in ALSO would have been "based on individual domain name holders". In today's resolution ICANN says that it "is not persuaded that global elections are the only or the best means of achieving meaningful public representation or the informed participation of Internet users in the ICANN process" and proceeded to reject the proposals,
while at the same time engaging in a bit of
double-speak about its action according to dissenting board member Karl Auerbach. It looks like ICANN is leaning towards its presidents' reform proposal which argues that ICANN suffers from "Too Much Process" among other problems, and that seats on the board should be chosen by the board itself, from among
nominations submitted by governments and a new
Nominating Committee (NomCom)."
The whole disaster conjures up images of the Olympic's IOC. A bunch of politically motivated control freaks acting out of vindictiveness and hubris.
Can we eliminate ICANN and start over again? Please?
From ICANN to UCANT.
If you post it, they will read.
Every so often governements become too controlling and revolutions occur. Too little input, sweeping changes, public insensitivity, the like.
What would you do if the Congress said "general elections are so much trouble - all that counting... We'll just pick our successors from now on..."
And if you're afraid of losing freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, what would you do if they revoked your right to vote?
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
There are Web sites devoted to following the criminal antics of the ICANN thievery, such as ICANN Blog and ICANN Watch.
The Gardener
--
In a way, I'm at least a little bit happy to hear that they won't be conducting elections. This sounds bad at first, but consider this: the only people who would have been allowed to vote were domain name holders, and who owns most of the domains out there? Large corporations. Things are bad now, but if these corporations got to choose who to put on the ICANN board, they wouldn't get any better. No, they would vote for the candidate who would best represent their corporate interests (and screw over the little guy). There's got to be a better way.
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
.sig
You just have to have a trusty worthy dictator.
I somehow do not see these folks as all being properly qualified in this regard.
at least, in other times, there was the appearance of legitamcy where a large body voted power to a few strong men. Here, there isn't even that.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
So, what we're seeing here is the same process that goes into forming a gov't. The people want representation, but the gov't claims they don't want huge processes, so they may allow other gov'ts to suggest (or maybe appoint) members of the board, but then you'll have the same problem of a country of states - some gov'ts represent a larger portion of the internet population, so we should get more representatives, but other smaller countries would be equally drowned out, so we set it up like the US republic?
No, this is going to be another "Good old boy" club, where all the board memebers do things for each other and for their own prestige and power. They nominate others who will help them in their own work, and shun anyone that doesn't comply.
They claim no responsability to anyone, least of all their users, so they will actually become targets of corporate lobbies and 'gifts'.
So, let's look back on history, and see if we can find examples of how such organizations and governements were effectively changed by their citizens.
Move along, nothing to see here, politics as usual.
-Adam
Does anyone else find it funny that the meeting were held in Ghana, which is relatively proximate to another area where democratic elections were 'spurned'--that's right, Zimbabwe.
ICANN is no better than Mugabe and his henchman--hell, at least they gave the impression that the election was fair.
<steam>Anyone want to join me in a holy crusade against ICANN?</steam>
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
There are a lot of things in the DNS protocol that are downright ugly, such as the useless idea of "zones", the allowing of NS referrals without glue records, and the CNAME record. These only make sense when we look at the needs of those that designed DNS. The protocol is designed to make it as difficult as possible to manage DNS records (so that the bureaucrats can feel cozy that they know how to manage zones better than the average system administrator). The fact that MX and NS records point to names instead of IPs reflects the fact that the average DNS bureaucrat was too lazy to run their zone files through a sed script when making changes. The fact that out-of-bailiwick NS records (records without glue) is allowed reflects both the average DNS bureaucrat is too lazy to supply the IP for an out-of-bailiwick record, and that a DNS bureaucrat likes having well defined boundaries of authoritity.
The top down hierarchical structure of DNS also reflects the fact that the bureaucrat likes well-defined authority. The discomfort BIND developers with alternate root servers reflects the bureaucrat's desperate need to cling on to the power that they perceive having.
The fact that some DNS bureaucrats have really silly requirements for someone to have a domain in their bureau shows the kind of power grabs DNS bureaucrats enjoy having.
It comes to no surprise to me that ICANN does not want things like democratic elections; their job is to do things as slowly as possible (doing things any faster would actually take work) while getting as much control and sucking as much money out of the system as possible.
Now, at this point, all I am doing is defining the problem; I do have some ideas bouncing around my head as to what a solution should be; however those ideas still use the top-down hierarchical structure that DNS has. It would be better if there was a way to have the DNS resolution structure be based on rough consensus instead of via a top-down structure; perhaps something that allows indivual DNS servers to send "votes" on who should control a given top-level-domain; if a given set of servers for a given top-level domain get enough "votes", they control the TLD in question.
Then again, a community-controlled system needs protections to not become the diastar that IRC has become; where 14-year old kids struggle to control the channel so they can be a jerk by kicking and banning people at random.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
" ICANN Reform - a personal view
Note: This is not the view of any body, organization or entity that I
sometimes represent. It is my personal attempt to organize thoughts that can
form the basis of saying something about how ICANN should be organized.
What ICANN was designed to do
ICANN, as designed, was supposed to carry out a few tasks:
All these functions can occupy a full-time person. Making sure the
information about those changes and modifications are visible to the world at
large throuh a web service can occupy another.
The rest of ICANN is concerned with one matter only:
Who gives those two people their instructions?
..."
Use OpenNIC, a truly democratic system for domain names.
It only takes about 2-5 minutes to set up on your computer.
Learn more by reading the OpenNIC FAQ.